Shark nets like Japan’s whale hunt

FIVE sharks big enough to do damage to a human have been caught in shark nets off the Sunshine Coast and killed in the days since January 1.

Last year, 43 sharks, were caught in the nets off the Coast, 30 were over two metres and considered dangerous to humans.

One of these, a 4.72m tiger shark caught off Yaroomba, earned the record of being "the largest shark captured in the state".

Only four of the 43 sharks caught were released alive.

The net also trapped a small number of dolphins, turtles and whales, and a dugong.

No whales died, but three dolphins, one turtle and the dugong did.

Reader poll

Do you think the comparison between shark nets and whaling is fair?

This poll ended on 15 February 2015.

Current Results

Yes, both end in the slaughter of sealife

44%

Yes, but I can see the difference

5%

No, but I still don't agree with shark nets

18%

No, shark nets save lives

31%

This is not a scientific poll. The results reflect only the opinions of those who chose to participate.

Worldwide attention has been focussing on Western Australia's controversial shark-killing program after a spate of attacks.

But focus has turned to the shark control program off Queensland's coast where shark nets and drumlines are placed strategically in a bid to fend off shark attacks.

Andrew Warren from the University of New England has likened the practice to Japan's controversial whaling program.

"The methods used by Australian governments to reduce shark attacks on sea users are not only scientifically unproven, but also put at risk the populations of our marine creatures, some of which are officially listed as endangered, vulnerable or threatened on the 'red list' of the International Union for Conservation of Nature," Dr Warren said.

"On top of this, Australia is at risk of losing international environmental credibility.

"On the one hand we're leading action against Japanese whaling in the International Court of Justice, and on the other hand we are killing protected endangered marine species.

"It is hypocritical."

University of the Sunshine Coast Marine Science associate professor Tom Schlacher has also questioned the different strategy taken to defending humans from sharks to land animals, such as snakes - particularly as more people die from snake bites each year.

"You don't see a mass poisoning or fencing off of snakes because someone gets bitten," Dr Schlacher said.

But Queensland Sharks Control Program manager Jeff Krause has no problem defending the practice.

"Human safety must come first and that's why the Queensland Government is committed to this program," he said.

Mr Krause said Dr Warren's statement that all sharks over two metres caught in the net were euthanised was wrong.

"Those shark species considered generally non-dangerous, such as the tawny shark, are released alive from shark control equipment where possible, regardless of their size," he said.

The shark control program has also tried new technology, such as acoustic alarms, and different types of bait to minimise the number of animals caught.

Last season, 100% of whales and 93% of turtles were released alive throughout the state.

Mr Krause said the program was "effective in reducing the overall number of sharks in popular swimming areas, making it a safer place to swim".

The statistics seem to back this. Since the start of the program in 1962, "there has been one shark fatality at a shark control beach in Queensland".

Mr Krause said South Africa provided a good example "of the effectiveness of shark control".

"The Durban Shire Council in South Africa removed its shark enclosure in 1928," he said.

"This was then followed by around 26 attacks over the next 24 years until shark nets were installed in 1952, after which no serious attacks have occurred.

"Marine life other than sharks may come in contact with shark control equipment, but it's about getting the balance right with human safety, which is why we use other measures such as pingers to reduce entanglements of non-target species."

Dr Schlacher said from a political and social aspect shark nets made "the public feel safe".

However, from an environmental perspective "shark nets are catastrophic".

"The biological impact of shark nets is very clear - it is very detrimental to marine life," he said.

"Society decides how much environmental damage we are willing to have in order to feel safe in the ocean."

However, the practice was illogical.

"If every time there was an accident on the highway and we put a 30kmh zone around it, we wouldn't be driving anywhere," he said.

Dr Schlacher said shark nets were a "decision of fear, an irrational decision".

"We know using 4x4s on beaches is bad for the environment. Science has established this. Shark nets are very bad," he said.

"We allow 4x4s so people can have fun.

"It is the same reason we stick nets in the sea."

WHAT'S BEEN IN THE NETS OFF THE COAST:

2014: Five sharks, all over two metres and none survived

2013: 43 sharks, 30 over two metres, four survived

Four dolphins, one survived

One dugong

Two turtles, one survived.

One whale - survived

There has been one shark fatality in Queensland since nets were introduced in 1962

Durban (South Africa) had 26 shark attacks in the 24 years nets were removed. Nets were reinstalled and there have been no more serious attacks.

AGAINST:

Not only sharks get caught in the net, other sometimes endangered species of marine life also get trapped

Sharks can swim around or under the net, putting questions on effectiveness

No similar program attacks land animals with more snake fatalities than shark fatalities recorded each year